Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

pdragon04 writes to tell us that in recent tests a Howard Hughes Medical Institute team has found that through exposure to "young" blood cells, bone marrow stem cells start to act young again as well. "The researchers have not yet isolated the blood-borne factors that can switch old stem cells back to a more youthful state, but their results are consistent with other recent studies that show stem-cell aging may be reversible. Together those results suggest that it might one day be possible to boost the practical lifespan of stem cells, and thereby increase the body’s resistance to disease and age-related degeneration."

Well, going just by the summary, the marrow has to be exposed to the young blood cells. Now I doubt they would survive the digestion process very well, so you probably have to drain their blood and IV it like a heroin junkie while it's still fresh. Or even worse drill or punch a hole in your bone to shoot it directly into the marrow.

To see if younger blood could reverse the sluggishness of aging blood cells, the researchers began by surgically joining the bloodstreams of pairs of mice that were of different ages, but nearly clones of one another.

So not eat, but perhaps get transfusions from a much younger sibling. It would probably have to be the same blood type. Simply sucking the blood of random babies is unlikely to be effective and won't be appreciated by their parents or society, so probably best not to.

She has forgotten about that in every single episode since it happened! I just explain it away as a special property of her blood that only worked on others after Mohinder processed it. Yeah, that's it.

To see if younger blood could reverse the sluggishness of aging blood cells, the researchers began by surgically joining the bloodstreams of pairs of mice that were of different ages, but nearly clones of one another.

And I'll say what I always say - fuck PETA. Yes, I'm against being unnecessarily cruel to animals, but if you eliminate animal testing then several areas of science will pretty much grind to a halt. I for one would gladly sacrifice countless animals if it means we can slow down the rate of aging.

we are a product of speciesism, what do you expect us to do, refuse our natural instincts? Remind me of that the next time you try to counterpoint it.

I for one would gladly sacrifice countless amounts of any species if it is done voluntarily and without duress by the sentient/cognizant ones, to benefit humanity and/or the advance of science. Lots of people believe in this kind of concept, even though it is easily subverted. Some call it service (military or otherwise), or employment.

Science is necessary for medical treatments meaning saving and improving lives. Animals are not more important than humans and if X animals have to die so that countless human lives can be saved / horrible medical conditions can be treated so that their quality of life is better, then yes, it's a worthwhile trade off.

Your argument would have a point if we were talking about human testing against people's will (as was done during the Holocaust). However, since we're talking about animal testing, the ethics part doesn't fit in.

Science is necessary for medical treatments meaning saving and improving lives. Animals are not more important than humans and if X animals have to die so that countless human lives can be saved / horrible medical conditions can be treated so that their quality of life is better, then yes, it's a worthwhile trade off.

Your argument would have a point if we were talking about human testing against people's will (as was done during the Holocaust). However, since we're talking about animal testing, the ethics part doesn't fit in.

ethics–plural noun1. (used with a singular or plural verb) a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture.2. the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.: medical ethics; Christian ethics.3. moral principles, as of an individual: His ethics forbade betrayal of a confidence.4. (usually used with a singular verb) that branch of philosophy dealing with values rela

This whole argument is internally inconsistent. If humans are not different from other animals in any significant way, and therefore are no more important, then why should they be held to some special code of conduct? Animals regularly kill other animals for their own gain. Why shouldn't we? Because we are different in some key way? That makes the whole argument fail. Not that I don't support humane treatment of animals and the conservation of the environment.

To see if younger blood could reverse the sluggishness of aging blood cells, the researchers began by surgically joining the bloodstreams of pairs of mice that were of different ages, but nearly clones of one another.

True, but off-topic. They're probably going to go ape-shit over someone wearing fake leather. I doubt they are going to be reading the methods sections of scientific papers, they'd probably get upset over the non-cruelty-free ink the paper was printed on first.

I can't help but wonder if this discovery may have some effect on diabetes treatments in the future. For diabetics who still have some pancreatic function, and aren't wholly dependent on pills, maybe the results found from this research could help them.

As for those who are dependent on pills, needles, and the like, I could wonder what it would do for them.

The article didn't really clarify what happened with the diabetes in the affected test subjects, though, so I lack that answer.

Hmm... Do you think that medical ethicists would whine if insulin pumps [wikipedia.org] were replaced with tiny little stunted clone fetuses, permanently grafted into the host's circulatory system? You could even dress them up in adorable little baby clothes!

Hmm... Do you think that medical ethicists would whine if insulin pumps [wikipedia.org] were replaced with tiny little stunted clone fetuses, permanently grafted into the host's circulatory system? You could even dress them up in adorable little baby clothes!

Hmm...given that real fetuses currently can induce gestational diabetes [wikipedia.org] I'm not sure your fetal insulin pump replacement plan is going to work like you hope.

For diabetics who still have some pancreatic function, and aren't wholly dependent on pills, maybe the results found from this research could help them.

I think you meant dependent on injections. The pills in question would be to either boost insulin sensitivity (Useful for type 1 (no pancreatic function) and 2 (insufficient pancreatic function)) or boost pancreatic function (only useful for type 2). Injections provide insulin directly (required in type 1, used in type 2 if other options are insufficient or can't be used for other reasons).

I'm a type 2 diabetic. I only use pills, diet, and exercise to treat my symptoms, since the insulin I was taking was causing me to bottom out (50-60 mg/dL or lower). I would love something that would drop the need for (up to) 2.5 gigantic pills out of my daily regimen (especially given the side-effects (of which my gut would thank me to avoid) of Metformin).

I did address the needle group in my thoughts above, but a little haphazardly, perhaps.:)

A fairly older friend of mine's got type 2 diabetes and he sais he's been keeping it under control with diet , exercise and a couple of plant extracts.

Now I'm not big on all the "nature treatments" and stuff if i can't read a proper scientific paper on the active ingredients and how they go about their business , and frankly i haven't given it much effort but it seems to work for him and he no longer has to take those nasty sulfamides the docs were feeding him.

Except acting young again, does mean they stem cells
will have lost any genetic damage, that occurred though
aging. Perphaps some day though medicine will be
able to produce truely young stem cells, but that would
require checking that the DNA hasn't mutated from the
orignal young cell line.

Except acting young again, does mean they stem cells will have lost any genetic damage, that occurred though aging. Perphaps some day though medicine will be able to produce truely young stem cells, but that would require checking that the DNA hasn't mutated from the orignal young cell line

The current thinking in the field is that stem cells are generally more resistant to DNA damage than many other types of cells. A lot of damage comes from when the cell replicates it's DNA in preparation for division. The "textbook" stem cell don't seem to divide very often, instead they divide once to make transit amplifying cells, which divide like mad for a short period, making cells which will eventually mature and then not divide again. Why exactly older stem cells don't replentish the immune system

This is right on the money. There is a reason that stem cells become old, they become senescent and decrease or stop their division to protect against cancer. Cellular senescence can be induced by oncogenes, or bypassed by introducing the factors found in this study.

Knocking out tumor-suppressing genes has been shown to decrease aging while at the same time increase tumor incidence.

Call me the day cancer is cured, that's the day these discoveries can be beneficial against aging.

Okay for the serious discussion. Obviously there's some chemical trigger involved to so the cells are responding more like young cells. It seems likely a drug could be developed that could delay age related disease. Immortality is likely an impossibility but delaying aging another decade or two would be massive. I'm starting to feel the effects of aging so getting ten years back even if it didn't extend life would be huge to me personally

Postulate: no greater crimes will be committed against humanity than when we discover the secrets to clinical immortality.

Okay, but it's going to be a while before that's anything other than academic, and it isn't sped up by the results here. The present study has preliminary results on signaling needed to make mouse blood stem cells divide more as they did when they were younger. One day we may be able to use this knowledge to improve immune function in seniors. Cell signaling tends to be very specific to the cell type, the context. We are most likely not going to find that these same signals make all other stem cells act

Although they try to match size, then relative age, sometimes out of expediency a recipient must accept a donor a decade, two, or even three decades older than themselves. Would these organs age at the donor's rate or recipient's rate? I'm guessing the answer is "in between". Depending on the tissue, the donor cells may be slowly replaced by host stem cells over the decades and become more host-like. Heart and muscle has a slow turnover rate of one percent a year. So hearts are never fully converted. Som

My guess is that the organ would most likely continue to age at the donor's rate and any "turnover" would be too slow to make any appreciable difference.
I found this article about kidney transplants. From the extract, it basically says the age-matching helps increase the chances of survival for young recipients.
http://jasn.asnjournals.org/cgi/content/full/15/4/1086 [asnjournals.org]

Sir, you need to reconsider your P.R. firm.
With an Amazing P.R. firm, you don't need steps 1 and 2. The teenage girls will gladly give you a pint or two, and you will have plenty of them to do your fill infusion.

One painless, uncontroversial source of both young blood and stem cells is (or was) your umbilical cord blood. This is usually thrown away. Collecting it after a baby is born is trivially easy. The material is easy to preserve for decades. Costs are mostly related to storage & record-keeping.

The failure to get all the blood possible out of the afterbirth and into the infant reduces the health of the infant. Although it's common in modern childbirth to cut the cord as soon as possible, it's very very bad practice.

The failure to get all the blood possible out of the afterbirth and into the infant reduces the health of the infant. Although it's common in modern childbirth to cut the cord as soon as possible, it's very very bad practice. Your opinion is not shared by modern obstetricians. In any case there will always be some blood retained in the veins of the umbilical cord that would otherwise go to waste.